Good for them. There are many reasons to visit France: architecture, art, food, wine, weather. Now, I won't claim that because millions around the world watched the wedding that means they'll visit the UK. But it might help keep johnny foreigner interested.
Having the Monarchy "Might" encourage more people to visit the UK? Well that's a good reason for the taxpayers of Britain to continue to shell out their money to pay for the upkeep of a massive family of rich toffs in the luxury to which they have grown accustomed. I see plenty of tourists in Glasgow, I doubt many of them visited on the off chance they will bump into the Queen.
Quote - I see plenty of tourists in Glasgow, I doubt many of them visited on the off chance they will bump into the Queen. They're no tourists, theyre frae Maryhill.
Did you not sign up to the British Arm y to protect the Royal Family Dev? Ffs I seen the behaviour of you guys over here.
More than "might" in my opinion. £33million of which half goes on wages of people employed directly and the other half goes largely back into the economy is a small price to pay. The "5% increase" is a result of all the additional outgoings during the Jubilee year. I can't think of any reason to visit Glasgow.
Nope If it is a fact that having a Monarchy makes more people visit our shores then how come Fance gets more tourists? ..and a small price to pay for what? That makes no sense.
France gets more tourists because it is a bigger country with better weather, food and wine. It's south coast is on the med. Where would you rather holiday if you wanted to soak up the sun, Skegness or St Tropez? The amount of tourists that france gets is entirely irrelevant to the debate.
He's certainly giving a good impression of someone who supports the monarchy, if only I actually belived him he might have got some mileage out of me. He's taken it just that bit too far.
So is the debate about the TV Coverage in France or the number of French Folk that came to live here because of our Monarchy?
You were owned by her majesty when you served? Did those nasty paddies call your boss & tel him there may be a bomb in a bin ?
French tourism is irrelevant to the debate, i just mentioned the tv coverage as it backs up my view that the world at large is quite interested in our royals which effectively acts as an advert not just for tourism but for trade too. Your argument: "France gets more tourists therefore the royals don't draw in tourists" is as stupid as me saying "Germany/Japan/Russia gets less tourists therefore the royals do draw in tourists". Why there are 400,000 French in London is a mystery to me, intriguing.
I conned her, I crossed my fingers when I took her shilling and considering the money i've given her and her offspring over the years - for no return I may add - I think she is in defeicit column to me and many others besides.
And what does this foreign "Interest" benefit me? It doesn't, it benefits very very few unless you know better and can tell me what tangible benefit the UK gains from an authoritarion and wholly unelected Head of State who rules by the divine right granted her by God?
